Obama Administration Ordering Release of Illegal Immigrants As Long As They SAY They Qualify For DREAM Act
A recent report from the Daily Caller highlights immigration officials claims that they are being forced to release illegal immigrants if they simply say they ‘went to high school’ or ‘have a GED’, requirements that would qualify them for the President’s new amnesty by executive order plan.
This is the equivalent of a police officer walking up to a bank robber and asking the person if they robbed the bank. If the thief says no, the police must release him.
It is a blatant compromise of national security, and I would love for somebody to explain how it does not also qualify as an impeachable offense.
The fact that President Obama granted amnesty to nearly 1 million illegal immigrants via an executive order was a stunning abuse of power in and of itself. The fact that a suspected illegal immigrant can now go free just by claiming they qualify for the President’s plan virtually extends that amnesty to many more law-breakers. And what are the odds that those who have no respect for the law of the land in the first place would simply lie in order to be released?
An excerpt from the Daily Caller report:
A top union official for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s administration has ordered ICE agents to blindly — and without any evidence — believe illegal immigrants if they claim they qualify for Obama’s administrative DREAM Act.
Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, explained at a press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon how the new selective immigration law enforcement policy Obama announced during a White House Rose Garden speech in June is affecting the officers he represents.
“As we still wait on detailed guidance from the administration, it’s impossible to understand the full scope of the administration’s changes, but what we’ve seen so far concerns us greatly,” Crane, said. “As one example, prosecutorial discretion for DREAMers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go.”
“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” he continued. “Even with the greatly relaxed policies, the alien is not required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.”
Under the new orders, however, illegals can escape federal charges simply by claiming — whether it’s the truth or not — that they meet the DREAM Act rule’s requirements issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ICE agents have claimed the new guidelines amount to a free pass for illegal aliens. It condones law-breaking for those who are already law-breakers.
Also mentioned at the press conference was a specific example of the new rules at work.
One example used focused on last week’s El Paso, Texas incident where an illegal alien was arrested after he physically assaulted a family member, tried to keep that person from calling police and was subsequently arrested by an ICE agent who was then assaulted by the illegal alien himself before trying to flee arresting officers. Under the new DREAM Act, this man was released without charge because he was under 30 and said he went to high school in the U.S.
McCubbin and Crane further illustrate that agents do not need any proof that illegal aliens went to high school or received a GED- their word is good enough under President Obama’s new DREAMer policy.
The man physically assaulted a family member and an agent, and was released based on the fact that he said he went to high school?
Doug Ross summarizes, “Folks, we are seeing the civil society unravel right before our eyes.”
He added, “If we don’t stop this madness in November, we may well have lost the Republic.”
Unbelievable. It may already be lost…
Fausta’s blog is simply referring to it as “border security for pu**ies”.
Fox News has reported that border patrol agents in Arizona are not happy about a new ‘Active Shooter’ course being provided by the Department of Homeland Security, in which agents are instructed to ‘run away and hide’ when they encounter an ‘active shooter’.
One agent referred to it as ‘insulting’.
It’s one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.
“We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’” union leader Brandon Judd wrote on the website of 3,300-member union local. “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered).”
Here is a copy of the pocket guide to border security:
While it is difficult to read, the instructions throughout the pamphlet read like a sad comedy routine. For example, step three in the ‘How to Respond’ section states that “when your life is in imminent danger” respond by “throwing items at the active shooter”.
How about, blow their head clean off of their body?
Fausta likens it to a Monty Python skit:
Say again? “Attempt to disrupt and/or incapacitate the active shooter”? Whatever happened to shoot to kill?
What’s next? Holler at them, “Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elder berries”?
It’s quite odd that our government has been arming drug cartels at the border with powerful assault weapons, while simultaneously telling Americans working along the border to throw rocks back at them.
Unreal – In Response to Supreme Court Decision, Obama Administration Punishes Arizona Law Enforcement
How can an alleged law scholar respond to the Supreme Court of our nation by ignoring their rulings, or essentially finding other ways around what they have decreed as legal?
The court struck down three of the four provisions in Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, but upheld a key provision which allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop. Clearly, the Obama administration was not pleased with the Supreme Court ruling, which makes me believe it may have been more of a victory than was assumed at first glance. And being not pleased, the administration does what it tends to do when they don’t get their own way – they reverted to a child-like petulant nature.
The Department of Homeland Security has announced that they are discontinuing agreements made with Arizona police to enforce federal immigration laws. In other words, they pouted, stomped their feet, took their ball and went home.
The Department of Homeland Security is suspending the program it uses to deputize local, county and state law enforcement officers in Arizona so they can double up as immigration agents.
The move affects only Arizona and it was made in direct reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday regarding Arizona’s controversial immigration laws.
Further, DHS has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Read that again.
HOMELAND SECURITY will be IGNORING PHONE CALLS regarding individuals who are IN OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Doesn’t that defy the very definition of ‘homeland security’?
Can you just imagine?
“Excuse me Ms. Napolitano, we’d like to report an individual who has crossed our border illegally, ignoring the sovereignty of our nation, someone who may represent a threat to our security…”
Napolitano, with fingers inserted firmly in ears responds with, “La, la, la, la, I can’t hear you…”
Additionally, the DHS is limiting resources to a state police force trying to enforce a federal law that the federal government wasn’t enforcing in the first place. Presumably, they would be continuing this program had the Supreme Court struck down the entire law, leaving only one interpretation – Obama is only willing to enforce a law if he agrees with it.
This is a stunningly amateurish temper tantrum of a response to the Supreme Court’s decree that police officer’s can check the immigration status of people in the process of breaking the law. And it leads to the question, with this and the administration’s adamant opposition to voter ID laws, why is President Obama so protective of people that are willing to break the law?
Oh yes – votes. Democrats have the market cornered when it comes to illegal votes.
Meanwhile, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer crushed the President with this statement:
“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.
“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.
“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn – downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.
It seems like on a nearly daily basis, we are discussing how the Obama administration has managed to hit a new low. At some point, you’d think the President would hit the bottom of the barrel, but he simply keeps breaking through and digging even deeper.
Will the President find a way to circumvent the law again if the Supreme Court strikes down his signature achievement on Thursday?
Brewer points out why the actions of this President need to be taken very seriously:
“The President’s action should be of concern to all Americans. This fight is not over. President Obama may disregard Congress. He may target individual states like Arizona. He may generally act with impunity. But he is not above judgment – and the American people will have theirs very soon.”
Will you continue to stand for this America? Four more years of this imperial Presidency?
Is this the Department of Homeland Security? Or Keystone Kops?
The government is now apparently fighting terrorism via the honor system. Because everybody knows, a suicidal jihadist’s best trait is honesty. Seriously. I’d say anyone enrolled in a homeland security program should just drop out now. Their tactics continue to reach inconceivable levels.
A new form is being required by individuals wishing to renew their aircraft registration. It is known as the Declaration Regarding Material Assistance/Non-Assistance to a Terrorist Organization (DMA).
The title itself requires more brain cells to read than were used to develop the very questions it contains.
From Maggie Thurber:
A friend was renewing his Ohio aircraft registration and mentioned a form that he was required to fill out, affirming that he’s not a terrorist and hasn’t helped any designated terrorist organizations.
It’s known as the Declaration Regarding Material Assistance/Non-Assistance to a Terrorist Organization (DMA) form and it contains the following questions to which you’re supposed to check a yes or no box.
And here is the first question:
1. Are you a member of an organization on the U.S. Department of State Terrorist Exclusion List?
I wonder if they have ever had a documented instance in which somebody answered yes to this question.
Now, pick your jaw up off the floor and go read the rest…